NSW - Call for seperation of the highway patrol from LAC's

[Ext User(Mot Adv-NSW)]

Here in NSW, advocates:-) are increasing calls for the complete seperation
of the "NSW Police Traffic Branch" from LAC's (Local Area Commands). This
was the operational case many years ago.

The effect will be to free-up existing highway patrol officers currently
filling in for general duty staff shortfalls.

Serving highway patrol members complain of having too much non-traffic paper
work to complete, 2 hours plus per day, and of having to do general policing
duties completely unrelated to their core training, that of road safety.

Add the issue of sick leave, entitlements and so on and it all adds up to
fewer HWP numbers.

This all leads to highway patrol vehicles sitting idly by around the state,
the cost of each unit is put at $100,000. The highway patrol report 23
Falcons as having 'faults', they are to be replaced.

NSW will intend that our highway patrol increase enforcement actions beyond
speed, to other key driver behaviours. This will all take some time to
implement and I'd expect existing penalties, beyond those applying to
'speed', to increase.

Jeremy.

[Ext User(Bob Saccamano)]

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:12j8io6emcau67d@corp.supernews.com...
> NSW will intend that our highway patrol increase enforcement actions
> beyond speed, to other key driver behaviours. This will all take some time
> to implement and I'd expect existing penalties, beyond those applying to
> 'speed', to increase.

I see NSW HWP cars either:

1. Parked out the front of a station
2. Parked on the side of the road with a speed detector.

If I were in charge, I'd replace HWP officers with fixed speed cameras.
Same result. Less money. Now if only HWP officers did actually enforce road
safety issues other than speed we'd all be better off. I'm sure they do, to
some small degree but not nearly enough.

Case in point. Southbound on F3 heading towards Hawkesbury last Friday.
Driver of large 4WD towing a boat. Trailer was having a bit of a tank
slapping moment. Idiot in 4wd increases speed to 120km/h. Problem gets
worse. Idiot driver decides that it might be in his best interest to slow
down, pull over and investigate cause. Happened to pass a HWP car parked
with radar. HWP car did nothing.

[Ext User(Brendon)]

Bob Saccamano wrote:

> If I were in charge, I'd replace HWP officers with fixed speed cameras.
> Same result. Less money.

Far from the same result:

1. People know where fixed speed cameras are and just slow down for them
- limited effectiveness;

2. A fixed cameras can only detect speed in one place and nothing else
(or a stretch of road for those new cameras). A HWP person can detect a
range of offences in various locations;

3. It's widely accepted that marked police cars on the roads are the
best deterrent; and

4. A fixed speed camera cannot pursue an offender.

I would like to see it go back the other way; less fixed cameras, more
HWP. Unfortunately I don't think that will happen - the bean counters
will just look at the cost in the end.

[Ext User(David Springthorpe)]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:10:52 +1000, Brendon <no@way.man> wrote:

>
>1. People know where fixed speed cameras are and just slow down for them
>- limited effectiveness;

They're known because, at least in NSW, there's a bloody big sign
warning of them.

Why are they of "limited effectiveness" if "people just slow down for
them" - isn't that supposed to be the prime reason for their existence
(surely only a cynic would suggest they are associated with revenue
raising !) ?

[Ext User(Athol)]

Mot Adv-NSW <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Here in NSW, advocates:-) are increasing calls for the complete seperation
> of the "NSW Police Traffic Branch" from LAC's (Local Area Commands). This
> was the operational case many years ago.

You want that to be coalition policy leading up to the next state election?

Provide me with a "white paper" style of proposal that I can wave under a
few noses and I'll see what I can arrange. :-)

> The effect will be to free-up existing highway patrol officers currently
> filling in for general duty staff shortfalls.

Political mileage in that!

> Serving highway patrol members complain of having too much non-traffic paper
> work to complete, 2 hours plus per day, and of having to do general policing
> duties completely unrelated to their core training, that of road safety.

While you're at it, are you going to limit the ability of HWP to write
defect notices for stuff they're not trained to assess? If they weren't so
busy writing defects for "front mounted intercooler might leak air" [1] and
the like, they'd have more time to stop people for u-turns across unbroken
lines etc..

[1] Actual defect on Subaru Forester in Muswellbrook area within past few
days. Correct defect would be "Installation of intercooler to be certified
for compatability with SRS airbag system". On an older vehicle such as R33
GTS-T, correct defect would be "crash structure (bumper bar frame) cut to
fit intercooler".

> NSW will intend that our highway patrol increase enforcement actions beyond
> speed, to other key driver behaviours. This will all take some time to
> implement and I'd expect existing penalties, beyond those applying to
> 'speed', to increase.

The points on speeding need to be brought back to reality. The 1-month
suspension for 130 in 110 zone needs to quietly dissapear if it hasn't
already.

Time for fog light misuse to gain a point or two.

I'll be sending you an email in the next few days.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Robert Irvine)]

Careful what you wish for. :-)

You may end up with civilian contractors running the mobile cameras to
'free up' the HWP officers for other duties. (i.e. like Victoria)

One result of this was a lot more cameras in operation, (it take almost
no time/money to train a civilian to run the camera) a lot more of the
time. (a couple of shifts a day per camera)

When the politicians want more revenue, they can then simply ask the
contractor for more cameras to be run. As the contractor gets a cut
from each ticket, the more tickets, the more money for them, the more
revenue for GovCo, and technically it does not cost the taxpayer a cent
more. (some would argue it allows tax cuts).

When revenue starts to flatten off (people only drive so far per day, so
there is a theoretical limit on how often you can fine them), they
simply drop the tolerances on the cameras to catch more 'speeders'.
104kph in a 100kph zone will get you a ticket in Victoria.

Rob.

"Brendon" <no@way.man> wrote in message
news:4535710b$0$4668$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Bob Saccamano wrote:
>
>> If I were in charge, I'd replace HWP officers with fixed speed
>> cameras. Same result. Less money.
>

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

"Robert Irvine" <Robert.Irvine@ILikeSpambigpond.com> writes:

>Careful what you wish for. :-)

>You may end up with civilian contractors running the mobile cameras to
>'free up' the HWP officers for other duties. (i.e. like Victoria)

What about fixed scameras?
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410449>

Britain's booming speed camera network is at the centre of a
giant 'scam' aimed at making 'buckets of money' for the
Government, the boss of a leading supplier of the devices
has admitted.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "Laws do not persuade just because
X against HTML mail | they threaten."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

[Ext User(Brendon)]

David Springthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:10:52 +1000, Brendon <no@way.man> wrote:
>
>> 1. People know where fixed speed cameras are and just slow down for them
>> - limited effectiveness;
>
> They're known because, at least in NSW, there's a bloody big sign
> warning of them.

Does not take long for people to get to know the locations in
non-signposted states. Devices like the Road Angel help even more.
>
> Why are they of "limited effectiveness" if "people just slow down for
> them" - isn't that supposed to be the prime reason for their existence
> (surely only a cynic would suggest they are associated with revenue
> raising !) ?

Argghhhh - I'm struggling to turn my cynic mode off.....

[Ext User(Shane)]

"Mot Adv-NSW" <mot.adv@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:12j8io6emcau67d@corp.supernews.com...

I sent an email off to Hadley yesterday saying exactly this. I detailed how
the interference affects HWP performance.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Robert Irvine wrote:

> When revenue starts to flatten off (people only drive so far per day, so
> there is a theoretical limit on how often you can fine them), they
> simply drop the tolerances on the cameras to catch more 'speeders'.
> 104kph in a 100kph zone will get you a ticket in Victoria.

The "alleged speed" may be 104 but thats after the tolerance is deducted
so to be fined you need a "detected speed" of at least 107.
I agree the tolerance is too low but don't over exaggerate it.


Daryl

[Ext User(atec77)]

Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "Robert Irvine" <Robert.Irvine@ILikeSpambigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Careful what you wish for. :-)
>
>> You may end up with civilian contractors running the mobile cameras to
>> 'free up' the HWP officers for other duties. (i.e. like Victoria)
>
> What about fixed scameras?
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410449>
>
> Britain's booming speed camera network is at the centre of a
> giant 'scam' aimed at making 'buckets of money' for the
> Government, the boss of a leading supplier of the devices
> has admitted.
My understanding is the Gatso's are suffering destruction an a monthly
basis or more in many areas , now surprising really when several times
this year a stationary radar van has been fire bombed in a close well
considered suburb ( doesn't even make the papers now )

[Ext User(Mot Adv-NSW)]

"Athol" <
> While you're at it, are you going to limit the ability of HWP to write
> defect notices for stuff they're not trained to assess? If they weren't
> so
> busy writing defects for "front mounted intercooler might leak air" [1]
> and
> the like, they'd have more time to stop people for u-turns across unbroken
> lines etc..
>
> [1] Actual defect on Subaru Forester in Muswellbrook area within past few
> days. Correct defect would be "Installation of intercooler to be
> certified
> for compatability with SRS airbag system". On an older vehicle such as
> R33
> GTS-T, correct defect would be "crash structure (bumper bar frame) cut to
> fit intercooler".
Shouldn't laugh but gee. . .

> Time for fog light misuse to gain a point or two.
The update to ARR217 to now include front fogs was drafted some time ago -
I'll need to see where it is at, early 2007 I'd suggest, a few other ARR
changes before that to be signed, end of year for those I understand.

> I'll be sending you an email in the next few days.
No worries, let me know where you at: mot.adv@internode.on.net

Following a particularly nasty VIC rear ender into stationary vehicle left
on a freeway resulting in two burnt ladies, done when a third tanker
impacted, I directly nagged VIC trans office on the subject of UNECE
triangles as a state requirement to then prompt federal action and action at
ARR level, - had them 'very interested', told me they'd get their senior
VIC Roads person to call, he in turn after 40 odd minutes reckoned I should
go federal with this. (Gee, over and over and over this line goes, and I
know it well).

The bugger doesn't seem to realise that bodies such as ATSB and NTC cannot
adopt measures unless they are proposed by a state, "hurrow"? Made the well
known point that VIC would have trouble implementing a mandatory requirement
for registered vehicles 'because unlike NSW we don't have say a pink slip
system where conceivably the engineer would tick the triangle box.

The Yass investigation highlighted by ant of group - continues.

Basically a "no can do-too hard basket' character, forget that the states
can make rules and requirement on these matters. I'll sneak another go at
our southern cousins.

What we need really is a party developed policy to implement, in effect to
'encourage' the public servants to do some real work on the issue. They
have little appreciation of quality issues, nor can they comprehend items
such as vests and triangle implementation. Nag nag nag:-) We'll get there.

Modifying text to RUH on the subject.

J.

[Ext User(D Walford)]

Mot Adv-NSW wrote:

> Following a particularly nasty VIC rear ender into stationary vehicle left
> on a freeway resulting in two burnt ladies, done when a third tanker
> impacted, I directly nagged VIC trans office on the subject of UNECE
> triangles as a state requirement to then prompt federal action and action at
> ARR level, - had them 'very interested', told me they'd get their senior
> VIC Roads person to call, he in turn after 40 odd minutes reckoned I should
> go federal with this. (Gee, over and over and over this line goes, and I
> know it well).
>
I found out today that the 2 people killed were goods friends with one
of my employees.
Make triangles compulsory may not have helped much to avoid that crash
unless we make a law making stupidity illegal, apparently the bonnet of
a car flew up so the female driver stopped but instead of moving the car
to a safe place she left abandoned it in the left lane where it was an
accident waiting to happen, if she was too stupid to simply drive the
car to a safe place I don't think she would be smart enough to use a
triangle.
AFAIK she is now facing serious charges.



> The bugger doesn't seem to realise that bodies such as ATSB and NTC cannot
> adopt measures unless they are proposed by a state, "hurrow"? Made the well
> known point that VIC would have trouble implementing a mandatory requirement
> for registered vehicles 'because unlike NSW we don't have say a pink slip
> system where conceivably the engineer would tick the triangle box.
>

My wifes new Subaru has front and rear fog lamps, when I pointed them
out to her and one of friends they couldn't understand why anyone would
want a rear fog lamp, Australian motorists need lots more education but
when our authorities also don't understand your job must be bloody
frustrating.
Keep trying you may get through to someone sooner or later:-)



Daryl